DeepSeek V4 Flash vs GLM-5.2
DeepSeek V4 Flash 
GLM-5.2 Verdict
- GLM-5.2 (max) leads on quality: 63.9 vs 62.1.
- DeepSeek V4 Flash (max) is stronger in agents & tools, composite, instruction following, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- GLM-5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, maths, human preference.
- DeepSeek V4 Flash (max) is 8.2× cheaper ($0.262 vs $2.15 per 1M blended).
- DeepSeek V4 Flash (max) streams 3.0× faster (212 vs 71 tokens per second).
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash (max) | GLM-5.2 (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 62.1 | 63.9 |
| Agents & tools score | 67.0 | 63.8 |
| Coding score | 49.1 | 63.8 |
| Composite score | 72.8 | 72.1 |
| Instruction following score | 76.7 | 71.6 |
| Knowledge score | 57.4 | 55.5 |
| Long context score | 66.3 | 65.6 |
| Maths score | 57.3 | 59.0 |
| Reasoning score | 73.9 | 72.9 |
| Human preference score | – | 67.2 |
| Blended price $/M | $0.262 | $2.15 |
| Output speed | 212 tok/s | 71 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 10.6 s | 31.6 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| GPQA Diamond | – | 91.9% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | – | 59.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | – | 29.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | – | 86.4% |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | – | 78.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | – | 34.2% |
| SciCode | 44.9% | 50.5% |
| WeirdML | 45.6% | 70.1% |
| ProofBench | – | 35.0% |
| LMArena Text | – | 1472 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | – | 1493 |
| LMArena Coding | – | 1510 |
| LMArena WebDev | – | 1592 |
| LMArena Agent | – | 4.4 |
| AA Intelligence Index | 34.5 | 34.0 |
| IFBench | 79.2% | 73.3% |
| AA-LCR | 79.7% | 78.3% |
| AA-Omniscience | -14.3 | 4.4 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 35.6% | 50.8% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 90.8% | 89.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 38.5% | 41.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 50.4% | 51.2% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 95.0% | 99.1% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 67.8% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 82.8% |
| AIME 2026 | 95.8% | – |
| HMMT February 2026 | 93.9% | – |
| MathArena Apex | 27.1% | – |
| CritPt | 16.6% | 20.9% |
| GDPval (AA) | 47.1% | 45.3% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | 39.4% | 34.6% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | 31.5% | 42.7% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | 25.0% | – |
| APEX-Agents (AA) | – | 33.7% |
| Code Migration | – | 37.9% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | – | 7.1% |
| Legal Research Bench | – | 31.3% |
| ProgramBench | – | 0.5% |
| SkillsBench | – | 45.1% |
| SREBench | – | 0.0% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | – | 64.0% |
| LMArena Maths | – | 1480 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | – | 1451 |
| LMArena Instruction Following | – | 1466 |
| LMArena Multi-turn | – | 1469 |
| LMArena Longer Queries | – | 1483 |
| Chess Puzzles | – | 21.0% |
| EBR-bench | – | 9.5% |
| PostTrainBench | – | 31.7% |
| DeepSWE | – | 43.8% |
| LMCA | 35.9% | 45.8% |
| DTBench | 86.4% | 93.6% |
| CursorBench | – | 55.0% |
| ALE-Bench | – | 1010.2 |
Data as of 2026-09-19. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
DeepSeek V4 Flash vs GLM-5.2: questions
- Is DeepSeek V4 Flash better than GLM-5.2?
- GLM-5.2 (max) leads on quality: 63.9 vs 62.1. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; GLM-5.2 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-19, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is DeepSeek V4 Flash better than GLM-5.2 for coding?
- GLM-5.2 scores higher in coding (64 vs 49 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is DeepSeek V4 Flash better than GLM-5.2 for agentic tasks?
- DeepSeek V4 Flash scores higher in agentic tasks (67 vs 64 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GLM-5.2?
- DeepSeek V4 Flash is cheaper: $0.262 against $2.15 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GLM-5.2?
- DeepSeek V4 Flash streams faster: 212 against 71 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.